24 team playoff with the best 8 gets byes. Rounds start with the higher ranked team at home. All conferences included. Infinitely better than meaningless bowl games when a team, like UCF, can go 13-0 and not have a chance to prove if they're legit.
The FCS has it right...
- Thread starter 78SweetRevenge
- Start date
There are many formats that are infinitely better than the joke that is in place now.
Playoff could look something like (winner plays team in bracket in second round) Using current rankings
Alabama Bracket
First Round
Boise State-MWC @ Michigan State (#1 Alabama)
Troy-Sun Belt @ Ohio State (#8 Notre Dame)
Clemson Bracket (I have them winning the ACC)
Memphis @ Mississippi State (#2Clemson)
Toledo-MAC @ Penn State (#7Georgia)
Oklahoma Bracket
Stanford @ UCF-AAC (#3 Oklahoma)
Florida Atlantic-CUSA @ Southern Cal-Pac XII (#6 Auburn)
Wisconsin Bracket
Oklahoma State @ Washington State (#4 Wisconsin)
LSU @ TCU (#5 Miami)
First 2 Out
Iowa State/Northwestern
The money they'd make on this would make bowl money look like nothing
Alabama Bracket
First Round
Boise State-MWC @ Michigan State (#1 Alabama)
Troy-Sun Belt @ Ohio State (#8 Notre Dame)
Clemson Bracket (I have them winning the ACC)
Memphis @ Mississippi State (#2Clemson)
Toledo-MAC @ Penn State (#7Georgia)
Oklahoma Bracket
Stanford @ UCF-AAC (#3 Oklahoma)
Florida Atlantic-CUSA @ Southern Cal-Pac XII (#6 Auburn)
Wisconsin Bracket
Oklahoma State @ Washington State (#4 Wisconsin)
LSU @ TCU (#5 Miami)
First 2 Out
Iowa State/Northwestern
The money they'd make on this would make bowl money look like nothing
Yes, this is much better than the stupid bowl system that D-1A/FBS loves.
But people have hated it for 50+ years and nobody is willing to change it. The CFP is a marginal improvement; something that should have been in place since the 1960s or earlier.
A larger playoff would be far better.
I doubt if most of the bowls even make money. Nobody watches
But people have hated it for 50+ years and nobody is willing to change it. The CFP is a marginal improvement; something that should have been in place since the 1960s or earlier.
A larger playoff would be far better.
I doubt if most of the bowls even make money. Nobody watches
He said the top 8 have byes so it would be 24-16-8-4-2, right?
My God, you can't ask FBS teams to play that many games!! It is too taxing on the players!!! Only players at the FCS, DivII, and Div III could do something like that!!! Plus we know those guys all have to do this during exams, so really how could FBS do this??
at least that is what Barry Alveraz (sp?) said yesterday on Gameday.
at least that is what Barry Alveraz (sp?) said yesterday on Gameday.
Love your idea, to put icing on the cake (and eat it too)... After round 1 put all of the games at the sites of current bowl games, call them playoff bowls and roll from there. That way whether you win or lose the fans can have a trip to enjoy and the winners move on. The bowl franchises would be worth multiples more than they are today and the TV ratings would rise. Alas, this makes too much sense so I doubt I see anything close in my lifetime. The chances of football becoming marginalized given the declining participation are probably higher.
It's honestly comical. They should cut the regular season to 10 games if they're that concerned about the players and eliminate weekday games.
Better than what we have now. Personally, I think any playoff without all conference champions is a joke. Either FBS needs to be split into 2 levels or the playoff has to be at least 16 (11 conference champs/5 at large bids). First 2 rounds at the higher seed.
I want the bowl system to die. I don't understand, never have, why we reward mediocrity. 5-7 teams will be going to a bowl this year. Congrats on being sub-par...here's a trip to a meaningless bowl game.
Anything that gives us extra games to watch, I'm all for. I would hate for the season to be over so early in the year. That's why I'm okay with keeping the bowls, but just give us a better playoff system.
Again, if that's the rule then the non-power 5 conferences need to have their own level. Name another sport in which conference winners at left out.
That's fair. I watch a lot of the bad bowl games basically as a way to check out guys that will be drafted.
And it gives me something to do during the holiday season. I love watching bowl games on New Year's Day.
Few people would travel to 1st or second round games.
In the hypothetical, Penn State starts with a home game against Memphis in Rd 1. Ok that may sell to the home crowd, but out would be a slaughter.
Next Penn State travels to Alabama for their turn. Who goes to that outside Alabama fans?
The top 23 teams end the season with a loss. More than half are completely blown out. No bowl. Just misery. How many boosters sit on their wallets with that as most recent memory?
In the hypothetical, Penn State starts with a home game against Memphis in Rd 1. Ok that may sell to the home crowd, but out would be a slaughter.
Next Penn State travels to Alabama for their turn. Who goes to that outside Alabama fans?
The top 23 teams end the season with a loss. More than half are completely blown out. No bowl. Just misery. How many boosters sit on their wallets with that as most recent memory?
That doesn't even make sense. Of course the crowd is supposed to be heavy toward the higher seed. Who says Memphis can't beat us? Let's play and find out. If Michigan State can beat us Memphis can hang around IMO. Have you even seen Memphis play this year?
A chance to contend for a title is far better than winning a meaningless bowl game. I guarantee you Memphis would much rather play Penn State-Ohio State-Notre Dame-etc to see how good they are then play Southern Miss in the Birmingham Bowl as a reward for 11-1 with their only loss coming to undefeated UCF.
Do you believe Memphis would rather play Southern Miss in the Birmingham Bowl or be in a playoff with a chance to play Penn State on the road?
Memphis beating Southern Miss would have meaning? Explain how it is meaningful..
Memphis beating Southern Miss would have meaning? Explain how it is meaningful..
I believe back around the 1970 there were only 10 games per season. In the early 70’s this changed to 11 games per season. Could go to 10 regular season game plus a conference championship game. Then to playoffs. Might add an extra couple of games, but would be a lot fairer than the current system.
So, those teams in the in the NY6 (top 12 teams) couldn't win a playoff?
I honestly can't believe anyone says this that watches March Madness
We've seen teams outside the top 24 beat great teams this year...Iowa, Iowa State, Syracuse, etc
That would be ideal. 24 teams is way too many imo. 8 is probably just the right amount in terms of getting teams that actually have a chance and keeping the regular season meaningful and competitive.
Problem is cutting the season to 11 games would probably leave too much money on the table.
Last edited:
ESPN will be as relevant as an 8 track player in 5 years.
First, the NCAA has nothing to do with the FBS post-season (or much of the regular season for that matter). Second, ESPN is losing it's ass on the CFP, with semi-final viewership in the tank and the final not meeting expectations. Can't imagine they'd pay much for the first round games you presented as examples (they currently pay diddly for most of the bowl games they televise).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
